Pompey Takeover Saga

[Ponty]

It's been hidden. Must've been the tits.

[latter day saint]

It's been hidden. Must've been the tits.

 

thats what i was hoping for

mind you if its about the skates,thats a given realy

[Matthew Le God]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A68981016

 

Check this out! Tits!!

 

What was it about? It has been hidden.

[Gorgiesaint]

Let's not forget that we're still only getting AA's version of events and he's the only one telling us how everyone loves his CVA plan and that Operation Liquidation is foolproof.

 

The taxman has historically declined far more than 20p in the pound, I don't see that he'll accept less now, and there's no way I see the authorities accepting AA's progression from administrator to liquidator - at the helm of the fraud investigation into his own client?...

 

Chasing dodgy directors just isn't worth cash to HMRC, Storrie won't be coughing up £20M on his way to Ford.

 

Their best chance of maximum revenue is from the club, with their current claim.

I'd be surprised if they don't continue to chase the lot.

 

Hmm just thinking how this might play out.

 

One version is AA's version - that way HMRC will possibly end up with 20% over 5 years (if Pompey survive that long given the new wage structure that they seem to be setting up for themselves) plus they get to pursue Storrie for whatever they can get.

 

The other version see's them reject the CVA and force the issue back to court. Potentially this could see PCFC being liquidated - now we know they don't have many assets so HMRC lose out on 20% but still get to pursue Storrie. But could they also argue that UHY Hacker Young & AA are responsible for a large proportion of the debt (given the previous statment of affairs presented to the court) & pursue them. This could mean that they could recover up to, say, 50% 0f the debt from the administrator. They also take care of a dodgy administrator at the same time.

 

Is the second scenerio a viable option from a legal standpoint and a possible course of action for HMRC?

[Gorgiesaint]

Durham on Talksport really laid into the Skates this afternoon, saying he would rather see them be put out of existence than be let of 13m tax bill.

of course ex skate Mickey Quinn stood up for them

 

Not all the ex-Skates are though, interesting response from Steve Claridge on the BBC site when asked about Blackpool's facilities:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8709318.stm

 

How are Premier League clubs going to cope with Blackpool's dire facilities? They really are a disgrace.

 

Is Bloomfield Road suitable for a Premier League season? Are there any rules governing minimum capacity and if not, do you think there should be, as 12,555 seats doesn't seem sufficient, especially considering the away support some clubs enjoy.

 

I don't see the problem. Three parts of Bloomfield Road are nice and they will use the money they generate from being promoted to finish it so it's a 20,000 all-seater. The whole point of getting into the Premier League for a club like Blackpool is to put some sort of infrastructure in place.

 

If you want to talk about a disgrace, what about Portsmouth? Don't moan about Blackpool when you've got a team like Portsmouth who have spent six years in the Premier League, blown millions of pounds on players and still don't have a training base or a decent ground. At least Blackpool are trying to address that.

[teamsaint]

going back to androids plans for the new regime.

 

£10m wage bill, under any normal conditions, looks a tad optimistic to say the least.

 

What is the income of a CCC team? well Bristol city might be an example of a club with similar attendances. (poopey might be luck to get as many as they do).

 

In the year to the end of 2009, BCFC generated income of under £12m. On this figure they lost over £6m. Of the £6m loss, about £1 to £2m was due to development work on their new stadium.

Given that the parachute money will, by most estimates, be taken up almost entirely by "football debt", just how are poopey going to fund their new CCC lifestyle?

If the CVA is on £100m of debt, it will cost them £4 m PA, or around 60/70 % of their gate money.

 

Either android is just making it up, or somebody is going to need deep pockets.

Especially with the current take up of STs .

[Dark Munster]

Hmm just thinking how this might play out.

 

One version is AA's version - that way HMRC will possibly end up with 20% over 5 years (if Pompey survive that long given the new wage structure that they seem to be setting up for themselves) plus they get to pursue Storrie for whatever they can get.

 

The other version see's them reject the CVA and force the issue back to court. Potentially this could see PCFC being liquidated - now we know they don't have many assets so HMRC lose out on 20% but still get to pursue Storrie. But could they also argue that UHY Hacker Young & AA are responsible for a large proportion of the debt (given the previous statment of affairs presented to the court) & pursue them. This could mean that they could recover up to, say, 50% 0f the debt from the administrator. They also take care of a dodgy administrator at the same time.

 

Is the second scenerio a viable option from a legal standpoint and a possible course of action for HMRC?

 

So you're saying HMRC have a cunning plan to liquidate PFC, and then bankrupt UHY Hacker Young & AA?

 

I couldn't raise my hopes up that high. But as cunning plans go, that's the best I've ever heard!

[Dark Munster]

Not only will the assests be transferred but the liabilities as well, ie., the CVA payments.

 

It's a question the league will need to think about - there is no clear rule to say this does or does not impose a points penalty.

 

What I don't understand is why wait nine months to do this?

 

At a guess, liquidation and starting a new club before the season starts makes it easier for the FL to deny the new club its golden share. So it's safer to do it half way through the season.

[JackFrost]

Hmm just thinking how this might play out.

 

One version is AA's version - that way HMRC will possibly end up with 20% over 5 years (if Pompey survive that long given the new wage structure that they seem to be setting up for themselves) plus they get to pursue Storrie for whatever they can get.

 

The other version see's them reject the CVA and force the issue back to court. Potentially this could see PCFC being liquidated - now we know they don't have many assets so HMRC lose out on 20% but still get to pursue Storrie. But could they also argue that UHY Hacker Young & AA are responsible for a large proportion of the debt (given the previous statment of affairs presented to the court) & pursue them. This could mean that they could recover up to, say, 50% 0f the debt from the administrator. They also take care of a dodgy administrator at the same time.

 

Is the second scenerio a viable option from a legal standpoint and a possible course of action for HMRC?

 

Be a good way of setting a precedent for other football clubs thinking twice about paying their tax

[Dark Munster]

Will they get any penalty points, wont they just turn round and say thats the other club not this new one...

 

I'm sure they will say that. Whether the FL listens to them is a different matter.

 

CHEATING BASTARDS

[doughnutman]

Not all the ex-Skates are though, interesting response from Steve Claridge on the BBC site when asked about Blackpool's facilities:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8709318.stm

 

A very fair responce IMO. Its quite right that they should have been investing in their infrastructure and facilities rather than blowing it all on over priced players and cheating their way too trophies. Im sure if they had a better structure (i.e training facilities/ground) they may be a more attractive investment and wouldn't have had too put up with all these owners this season who have made their problems worse.

[Dark Munster]

Watch out for quasimodo (A.K.A. TCWTB)

 

[hypochondriac]

But the parachite payment is not going to pay off all the debt, there is a significant portion left over.

[fromdayone]

But the parachite payment is not going to pay off all the debt, there is a significant portion left over.

I propose a new rule change;

 

Parachute money should be used to pay off all creditors, not just football related,... any left overs should then be passed on to the club.

 

It is morally wrong to be able to wipe out 80 per cent debt whilst still raking in millions from premier league handouts.

Edited 27 May, 2010 by fromdayone

[suewhistle]

not sure if this has been posted - it's a difficult thread to keep up with - but UEFA are not impressed:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/8709871.stm

[Daren W]

Will they get any penalty points, wont they just turn round and say thats the other club not this new one...

 

So they could, but surely if they get out of it by claiming to be another, new club then surely they would forfeit the rights to any parachute payments? Surely they would belong to the artist formerly known as Portsmouth??

[EastleighSoulBoy]

So they could, but surely if they get out of it by claiming to be another, new club then surely they would forfeit the rights to any parachute payments? Surely they would belong to the FSBs formerly known as Portsmouth??

 

There, I feel better now!

 

More seriously I agree and wonder if this avenue might get explored by creditors in weighing up their decision on the CVA as it would remove all hope of the DFSBs paying anything more than nuppence per pound into the CVA. Thus liquidating them?

[Channon's Sideburns]

At a guess, liquidation and starting a new club before the season starts makes it easier for the FL to deny the new club its golden share. So it's safer to do it half way through the season.

 

Doesn't 9 months take us close to when Storrie's due to appear in court?

[Chez]

What's to stop Cardiff, Preston et al from offering HMRC 20% of their debt now?

 

nothing, but in both their cases HMRC might be better off liquidating the company. In the skates case they have no assets so 20p in the pound is better than nothing.

[Gorgiesaint]

Doesn't 9 months take us close to when Storrie's due to appear in court?

 

Not sure - one thing is that Mandaric, Harry & Storrie's case is back in court tomorrow again (although they won't be there)

 

http://www.courtserve2.net/courtlists/current/crown/sthwk_T100528.01.htm

 

Court 4

[brightspark]

If the cheats start the season on 0 points i'd like to see the whole of the NPC teams just refuse to play. It would never happen, but that kind of response is equal to the controversy and disgrace that the skates have been handing out to those less fortunate in the last 3 or so years.

[Merovingian]

not sure if this has been posted - it's a difficult thread to keep up with - but UEFA are not impressed:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/8709871.stm

 

that will have reverberations for alot of teams and about time too.

 

Shame this wasn't bought in earlier, we might not be in the mess we are.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

that will have reverberations for alot of teams and about time too.

 

Shame this wasn't bought in earlier, we might not be in the mess we are.

 

Big kick in the wotsits for the likes of Chelsea I'd reckon. So what about certain nefarious characters like those who 'bought' pcfc? They will find a way to flout any laws I'd imagine.

[Saint in Paradise]

What about if an owner buys another company not related to the football club and then that company sponsors

the football club with millions of pounds ?

 

:confused:

[Saint in Paradise]

Are "we" putting too much faith in HMRC ? I mean they don't seem as efficent as I had hoped

 

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has apologised after sending other people's personal information to 50,000 tax credit recipients.

7:48pm UK, Thursday May 27, 2010

 

Miranda Richardson, Sky News Online

 

AND also don't forget this news

 

6:39am UK, Wednesday November 21, 2007

The Government has admitted that computer discs holding personal information on 25 million people claiming child benefit have gone missing.

[Faz]

What about if an owner buys another company not related to the football club and then that company sponsors

the football club with millions of pounds ?

 

:confused:

 

I suspect they will have to have some kind of connected company clause (how workable that will be given comapnies registered in BVI etc?).

 

Gordon Farquar's blog explains the detail, but clubs can overspend by 45m Euros over a three year period and still be ok!!

[NickG]

What about if an owner buys another company not related to the football club and then that company sponsors

the football club with millions of pounds ?

 

:confused:

 

or selling corporate boxes for £1m per season?

[Wes Tender]

Quote from the Android:

"But we do not have to sell anyone on the cheap and there will be no stupid offers accepted.

 

"There are going to be parties out there that think they are going to take advantage but, believe me, they have no chance."

 

He added: "We want proper prices for all these players, there will be no bargains."

 

You're fooling nobody, you cretinous oaf. Of course you have to sell players. Of course there are bargains to be had. Of course it is a buyers' market. You are a club in administration for crissakes. The very first Premiership club to go into administration. You have massive debts and no firm offers on the table to buy you apart from Chainrai. Because of your predicament, this poxy, scabby little club has made waves right up to FIFA level. There is nobody in World football who does not realise that Portsmouth is a rotting carcass just waiting for the vultures circling above to pick over its carcass.

 

So don't pretend, Android, that you have any aces up your sleeve that will prevent other clubs making derisory offers for your players. You go naked into any negotiations over player sales. Not a pretty sight, but fully deserved.

[warsash saint]

Quote from the Android:

 

 

You're fooling nobody, you cretinous oaf. Of course you have to sell players. Of course there are bargains to be had. Of course it is a buyers' market. You are a club in administration for crissakes. The very first Premiership club to go into administration. You have massive debts and no firm offers on the table to buy you apart from Chainrai. Because of your predicament, this poxy, scabby little club has made waves right up to FIFA level. There is nobody in World football who does not realise that Portsmouth is a rotting carcass just waiting for the vultures circling above to pick over its carcass.

 

So don't pretend, Android, that you have any aces up your sleeve that will prevent other clubs making derisory offers for your players. You go naked into any negotiations over player sales. Not a pretty sight, but fully deserved.

 

To be fair to the Andriod, he is hardly going to come out & say 'we will sell at any silly price'.

Edited 28 May, 2010 by warsash saint

[JackFrost]

Are "we" putting too much faith in HMRC ? I mean they don't seem as efficent as I had hoped

 

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has apologised after sending other people's personal information to 50,000 tax credit recipients.

7:48pm UK, Thursday May 27, 2010

 

Miranda Richardson, Sky News Online

 

AND also don't forget this news

 

6:39am UK, Wednesday November 21, 2007

The Government has admitted that computer discs holding personal information on 25 million people claiming child benefit have gone missing.

 

Maybe they happen to be very busy people at the moment

[Wes Tender]

To be fair to the Andriod, he is hardly going to come out & say 'we will sell at any silly price'.

 

No, of course not. But the way that he words it makes him look ridiculous. There can't be one executive of a football club anywhere in the World who does not realise that the cretin is talking out of his posterior orifice. So why bother with the flannel?

[sidthesquid]

The stink of this just keeps getting worse

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Pompey-creditors-offered-20p-in.6326888.jp

 

Especially this:

The document states that the total paid back to unsecured creditors if the deal is approved will equate to £16.5m

Thatis less than half the parachute payments ffs. Surely the biggest p1ss-take in the history of football

[rallyboy]

But if the club is promoted back to the Premier League within the next five years, the creditors will get a boost of an extra five pence in the pound

 

Well that makes all the difference!

Local businesses are going to be shafted but if Pompey win the lottery they might give them a fiver!

 

If a company did that to me I would happily write off the pittance on offer, vote against it and dance on their corporate grave.

[Graffito]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/8191268.More_charges_for_Redknapp__Storrie_and_Mandaric/?ref=rss

[Doctoroncall]

The stink of this just keeps getting worse

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Pompey-creditors-offered-20p-in.6326888.jp

 

Especially this:

The document states that the total paid back to unsecured creditors if the deal is approved will equate to £16.5m

Thatis less than half the parachute payments ffs. Surely the biggest p1ss-take in the history of football

 

 

Just out of curiousity, if the CVA isn't approved, can the company proceed with it anyway? I.e. apart from liquidation what are the other choices open to a company without an approved CVA?

[Pugwash]

But if the club is promoted back to the Premier League within the next five years, the creditors will get a boost of an extra five pence in the pound

 

Well that makes all the difference!

Local businesses are going to be shafted but if Pompey win the lottery they might give them a fiver!

 

If a company did that to me I would happily write off the pittance on offer, vote against it and dance on their corporate grave.

 

If they get promoted, then they're guaranteed at least a further £60m, which would be enough to pay the other 80p in the pound and bring forward the remaining payments on the 20p. Burnley were prudent, didn't spend and yo-yo'ed but are solvent. The creditors should insist they do the same in the event of promotion and not settle for 5p.

[benjii]

Just out of curiousity, if the CVA isn't approved, can the company proceed with it anyway? I.e. apart from liquidation what are the other choices open to a company without an approved CVA?

 

They could still exit administration but they would be in breach of league rules and would get a penalty.

 

Any buyer would have to stump up enough money to keep Chanrai happy though and as we know, no one is going to pay £14m for that crock.

[Wade Garrett]

nothing, but in both their cases HMRC might be better off liquidating the company. In the skates case they have no assets so 20p in the pound is better than nothing.

 

Surely the HMRC would be better off issuing another winding up order, and hoping they get a judge this time with the balls to do the right thing.

 

If that happened, I would bet that the outstanding tax bills of Cardiff and Preston, and any other club, get swiftly paid.

 

It probably won't happen though, because HMRC strike me as bullies who go for the easy targets, and let arseholes like PFC slip through the net.

[angelman]

Question about CVA and suppliers.

 

If a CVA is agreed at 20p, I presume that 80p is written off by suppliers and off set against tax. Therefore the 20p is still outstanding, and as a debt owing, no doubt it is accruing interest by the supplier's bank, say at 4%.

 

Might it not be better for some suppliers to off set 100p against tax and refuse to accept the CVA at 20p?

 

Need someone good at accounts here......Say you are owed £50k. You write off 80% and are owed £10k under the CVA.

 

Interest

£10k @ 4% = £400

£7.5k @ 4% = £300

£5k @ 4% = £200

£2.5k @ 4% = £100

 

So you might end up with £1000 interest charges, or 10% of the 20p. I know the figure is probably a bit high, but I would have thought that it would be better to write off 100% against tax rather than take this ridiculous 20p over 5 years.

 

Off course Gaydamak and HMRC are slightly different!

[OldNick]

Question about CVA and suppliers.

 

If a CVA is agreed at 20p, I presume that 80p is written off by suppliers and off set against tax. Therefore the 20p is still outstanding, and as a debt owing, no doubt it is accruing interest by the supplier's bank, say at 4%.

 

Might it not be better for some suppliers to off set 100p against tax and refuse to accept the CVA at 20p?

 

Need someone good at accounts here......Say you are owed £50k. You write off 80% and are owed £10k under the CVA.

 

Interest

£10k @ 4% = £400

£7.5k @ 4% = £300

£5k @ 4% = £200

£2.5k @ 4% = £100

 

So you might end up with £1000 interest charges, or 10% of the 20p. I know the figure is probably a bit high, but I would have thought that it would be better to write off 100% against tax rather than take this ridiculous 20p over 5 years.

 

Off course Gaydamak and HMRC are slightly different!

You may get a better return by writing the money off your profits in I fell swoop.

[suewhistle]

But if the club is promoted back to the Premier League within the next five years, the creditors will get a boost of an extra five pence in the pound

 

Well that makes all the difference!

Local businesses are going to be shafted but if Pompey win the lottery they might give them a fiver!

 

If a company did that to me I would happily write off the pittance on offer, vote against it and dance on their corporate grave.

 

I must admit I've been thinking on those lines, that the payback is so poor, particularly in comparison with the amounts talked about in paying players in the future, that there must be more than one creditor considering the idea. It would simplify their accounting and planning by just simply writing the pitiful amounts off, rather than drift on over a few years receiving a few pence in the pound (if they survive that long)...

[angelman]

You may get a better return by writing the money off your profits in I fell swoop.

 

So not really any point in accepting the CVA then if it is 20p over a number of years. I presume that Gaydamak might be able to write off the £30m as well, so it is only HMRC who would lose out as he can't write it off. So maybe it would be best if HMRC was under 25% of unsecured debt, and the rest refuse the CVA.

 

People are saying that it would be better for HMRC to accept something rather than nothing (in the event of a liquidation). I am not sure what their long term view on this is, and might they not accept a liquidation in order to try and avoid problems with other clubs in the future. While they may lose out now (presuming that the directors couldn't afford to pay any of it), maybe in the long run they will save money.

 

If they do accept CVA, I think that I might try this and run up huge debts while enjoying life, and then offer to pay 20% over 4 years. Once HMRC set a precedence, isn't it just asking for trouble and again it might cost more in the long run when a plethora of companies use this in court.

[St Marco]

I wonder if HMRC want the money they are owed or just want a club to go under. Because if a club goes under it will set an example. Add to this Uefa's financial plans yesterday in regards to their competitions it would appear they are now wanting to stamp this out.

I can't see HMRC taking the 20p offer. If they are owed something like £25m and are going to get £5m paid at £1m a year i can't see them being too happy with that. And thus can't see them taking it.

[OldNick]

So not really any point in accepting the CVA then if it is 20p over a number of years. I presume that Gaydamak might be able to write off the £30m as well, so it is only HMRC who would lose out as he can't write it off. So maybe it would be best if HMRC was under 25% of unsecured debt, and the rest refuse the CVA.

 

People are saying that it would be better for HMRC to accept something rather than nothing (in the event of a liquidation). I am not sure what their long term view on this is, and might they not accept a liquidation in order to try and avoid problems with other clubs in the future. While they may lose out now (presuming that the directors couldn't afford to pay any of it), maybe in the long run they will save money.

 

If they do accept CVA, I think that I might try this and run up huge debts while enjoying life, and then offer to pay 20% over 4 years. Once HMRC set a precedence, isn't it just asking for trouble and again it might cost more in the long run when a plethora of companies use this in court.

i dont think anyone is sure what the revenue's plan is, and probably that's what they want.

Im an impatient person and so as time goes on i lose it and so perhaps believe wrongly that they are not doing anything about it.

It would be good to see AA and co get surprised and actually their plan go t###

[Doctoroncall]

They could still exit administration but they would be in breach of league rules and would get a penalty.

 

Any buyer would have to stump up enough money to keep Chanrai happy though and as we know, no one is going to pay £14m for that crock.

 

Yes, I know the first bit, but are you saying in your second sentence the unsecured creditors would get nothing if the CVA is not approved, i.e. that is the only option from rejecting the CVA or, can they ask for more via the courts/administrator or do they get 20p regardless or something else can happen?

Edited 28 May, 2010 by Doctoroncall

[Clapham Saint]

The point of the liquidation is to allow the HMRC to forensically investigate the books, and pursue the directors and officers of the company personally for any financial irregularities. It seems it is something HMRC have agreed to in this specific case, as it probably reinforces the judicial processes already in place against story-teller, et al.

 

What price a Luton-esque penalty once the evidence is unearthed ?

 

It is the liquidator which will do the investigation.

 

It is understood the current admin­istrators are likely to be confirmed as liquidators. [/Quote]

 

Oh well

[thefunkygibbons]

Question about CVA and suppliers.

 

If a CVA is agreed at 20p, I presume that 80p is written off by suppliers and off set against tax. Therefore the 20p is still outstanding, and as a debt owing, no doubt it is accruing interest by the supplier's bank, say at 4%.

 

Might it not be better for some suppliers to off set 100p against tax and refuse to accept the CVA at 20p?

 

Need someone good at accounts here......Say you are owed £50k. You write off 80% and are owed £10k under the CVA.

 

Interest

£10k @ 4% = £400

£7.5k @ 4% = £300

£5k @ 4% = £200

£2.5k @ 4% = £100

 

So you might end up with £1000 interest charges, or 10% of the 20p. I know the figure is probably a bit high, but I would have thought that it would be better to write off 100% against tax rather than take this ridiculous 20p over 5 years.

 

Off course Gaydamak and HMRC are slightly different!

 

In reality, most businesses would make a 100% provision against the debt so as to get relief now, and release the provision as payments under the CVA are made over the next few years

 

Perfectly allowable and prudent as well

[bridge too far]

It is the liquidator which will do the investigation.

 

 

 

Oh well

 

Could HMRC (or anyone else) challenge AA being appointed as liquidator, Clapham?

[hutch]

I'm not so sure that a liquidator couldn't still collect the parachutes when they become payable over the next 4 years even if the Company is liquidated. If you owe money to a company which is then liquidated, you still owe the money to the liquidator. Pompey "earned" the parachutes by being relegated from the PL. They don't have to do anything more over the next 4 years to earn them.

 

Pompey's only "assets" worth anything are the future cash flows from the parachute payments and player sales. The Administrator would obviously have to sell the squad pre-liquidation, as otherwise the registrations go to the League (or the FA).

 

If that's right, the creditors (and HMRC) would be in a better position if they were liquidated. Ball park figures:

 

£30m "secured" debt (Chainrai £15m + "Football debt" £15m)

£100m unsecured debt

 

£63m income (£48m parachutes + £15m for the squad)

 

The first £30m (1st year parachutes + player sales) would pay off the "secured" creditors, leaving £33m over the following 3 years (33p in the £) for the unsecured creditors.

 

That is, of course, only if they would still get the parachutes if they were liquidated, and if they haven't already had, and spent, some of it already.

 

My ball park figures are very different from the liquidator's, but who's to say whether their's are any more correct than mine? One of them (Keilly I think) was quoted as saying that 20p in the £ will cost £16.5m, indicating that the unsecured creditors are roughly £82m (of which HMRC represent 43%), which therefore means that the liquidators are working on £53m secured creditors if their total is £135m. I wonder if HMRC will have something to say about that. They laid down a marker about later challenging secured creditor status during the WUP hearings.

[JackFrost]

It is the liquidator which will do the investigation.

 

 

 

Oh well

 

If true then what will happen is what Chainrai wants to happen, barring HMRC taking them back to court.

 

I would be suprised if they didn't (if they have the means) as they must be more than suspicious about AA's independence from Chainrai to say the least